Bottom Line:
At T1, respective values were 6.63 ± 1.57 L/min for esCCO and 6.10±1.29 L/min for COTTE.Overall, 12 patients were classified as responders, 13 as non-responders by the reference method.A threshold of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46-0.95).

Background: We determined reliability of cardiac output (CO) measured by pulse wave transit time cardiac output system (esCCO system; COesCCO) vs transthoracic echocardiography (COTTE) in mechanically ventilated patients in the early phase of septic shock. A secondary objective was to assess ability of esCCO to detect change in CO after fluid infusion.

Methods: Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU, aged >18 years, in sinus rhythm, in the early phase of septic shock were prospectively included. We performed fluid infusion of 500 ml of crystalloid solution over 20 minutes and recorded CO by EsCCO and TTE immediately before (T0) and 5 minutes after (T1) fluid administration. Patients were divided into 2 groups (responders and non-responders) according to a threshold of 15% increase in COTTE in response to volume expansion.

Results: In total, 25 patients were included, average 64±15 years, 15 (60%) were men. Average SAPSII and SOFA scores were 55±21.3 and 13±2, respectively. ICU mortality was 36%. Mean cardiac output at T0 was 5.8±1.35 L/min by esCCO and 5.27±1.17 L/min by COTTE. At T1, respective values were 6.63 ± 1.57 L/min for esCCO and 6.10±1.29 L/min for COTTE. Overall, 12 patients were classified as responders, 13 as non-responders by the reference method. A threshold of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46-0.95).

Conclusion: We show strong correlation esCCO and echocardiography for measuring CO, and change in CO after fluid infusion in ICU patients.

Mentions:
A threshold value of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52–0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46–0.95). The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69–0.99). The positive LR was 3.6 and the negative LR was 0.21 (Fig 4).

Mentions:
A threshold value of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52–0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46–0.95). The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69–0.99). The positive LR was 3.6 and the negative LR was 0.21 (Fig 4).

Bottom Line:
At T1, respective values were 6.63 ± 1.57 L/min for esCCO and 6.10±1.29 L/min for COTTE.Overall, 12 patients were classified as responders, 13 as non-responders by the reference method.A threshold of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46-0.95).

Background: We determined reliability of cardiac output (CO) measured by pulse wave transit time cardiac output system (esCCO system; COesCCO) vs transthoracic echocardiography (COTTE) in mechanically ventilated patients in the early phase of septic shock. A secondary objective was to assess ability of esCCO to detect change in CO after fluid infusion.

Methods: Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU, aged >18 years, in sinus rhythm, in the early phase of septic shock were prospectively included. We performed fluid infusion of 500 ml of crystalloid solution over 20 minutes and recorded CO by EsCCO and TTE immediately before (T0) and 5 minutes after (T1) fluid administration. Patients were divided into 2 groups (responders and non-responders) according to a threshold of 15% increase in COTTE in response to volume expansion.

Results: In total, 25 patients were included, average 64±15 years, 15 (60%) were men. Average SAPSII and SOFA scores were 55±21.3 and 13±2, respectively. ICU mortality was 36%. Mean cardiac output at T0 was 5.8±1.35 L/min by esCCO and 5.27±1.17 L/min by COTTE. At T1, respective values were 6.63 ± 1.57 L/min for esCCO and 6.10±1.29 L/min for COTTE. Overall, 12 patients were classified as responders, 13 as non-responders by the reference method. A threshold of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46-0.95).

Conclusion: We show strong correlation esCCO and echocardiography for measuring CO, and change in CO after fluid infusion in ICU patients.